On Fox News

Someone on Fox News has asserted that Mainstream Media isn't telling the truth about our false president Joe Biden.

Gee, Gosh, Wow, what a surprise!

Our Mainstream Media routinely lies.  I referred to this phenomena as Pravdaism.

 

Belief

I believe a fundamental error was made in the Nuremberg Trials in not going after the propagandists.

Opinion

If the Mainstream Media told the truth numerous politicians would have ended their lives at the end of a rope.  Instead they were elected.

Credibility

The Mainstream Media has ABSOLUTELY NO credibility whatsoever.  Censorship is the negation of the human mind.  As rational thought is necessary to living a human life the censor, and those who demand it, are Enemies of Mankind.

The Tripwire
by
D. van Oort & J.F.A. Davidson
From The Resister

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"-- Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago

What would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion? Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause has been violated to one degree or another.

Documenting those violations would fill volumes, and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a tripwire. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as "the tripwire," but is not likely to occur. What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such dictatorship without an overt declaration. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot?

For much the same reason, we will leave out mass executions of the Waco variety. For one thing, they are composite abuses of numerous individual rights. Yet, among those abuses, the real tripwire may exist. For another, those events are shrouded in a fog of obfuscation and outright lies. Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. Those reasons cannot be explicitly identified if, in place of their identification, we simply point to a composite such as Waco and say, "See, that's why; figure it out." Any suggestion that more Wacos, in and of themselves, would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion?

For the same reasons, we leave out a detailed account of Ayn Rand's identification of the four essential characteristics of tyranny. She identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalisation of private property, and "above all," censorship.

With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real difference between the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly [Bolshevik] socialist Democratic Party? Nothing but time. Regarding the second we have the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and the ATF's enforcement branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial. Regarding the third, we have asset forfeiture "laws," the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and a myriad of other executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business and the economy. Regulating business for the common good (fascism) is no different in principle than outright nationalisation (communism).

However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion -- the freedom to attempt to rationally convince willing listeners -- is so fundamental an individual right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights, can be enforced, claimed, debated, or even queried.

Does this censorship include the regulation of the "public" airwaves by the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from advertising -- in their own defense -- on the same medium which is commanded by government decree to carry "public service" propaganda against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air politically-correct twaddle for "The Children"? Does it include the Orwellian "Communications Decency Act"? Does it include any irrationalist "sexual harassment" or tribalist "hate speech" laws which prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer: unequivocally yes.

Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech, yet they are censorship and are designed to intimidate people into the acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the cartridge box -- or lost forever.

Americans have been stumbling over tripwires justifying overt resistance for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation is a secondary tripwire only. It is second to censorship because if speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or any other population controls. If only guns are illegal, we may still convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been disarmed.

Resistance, in the context of this article, means those legitimate acts by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and authority to those powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the Constitution.

The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic resistance is to restore original Constitutional government, not change the form of government. To this end we believe: The enforcement of any laws -- local, state, or federal -- that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.

The operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to be honourable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than anarchy resulting from a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel subjective legislation.

The goal of patriots throughout the country must be the restoration of objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a subjective law (i.e. the Communications Decency Act) does not justify that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold or ignore a case that challenges subjective law, peaceable means of redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another jurisdiction.

However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty, from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by the highest court in the land to overturn a whim-based subjective law, or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law. Tyranny gets one chance per branch.
America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been considered in the first place. However, we cannot assert our claim to restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct. Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways.

Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament. Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use, and disposal cannot coexist with expropriation. The federal government's first task is to obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to force the government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the individual.
Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the state governments, not on the individual. The Constitution contains many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the ratification debates were the Anti-federalists, who secured Federalist guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution.

To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise. Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have been restored in their original form can we consider amending the Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example, the absence of a separation of state and the economy clause).

Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional "law."

Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus, by default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.

Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from censorship, can be advocated, discussed, or queried. It is incorrect to say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a prerequisite of censorship, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against any government that legislates, enforces, or upholds it.

However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the only violation of individual rights that does not require actual enforcement or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a supporter's property to address willing listeners or readers, that government has openly and forcibly declared that the art of peaceful persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant, all peaceful avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible method of regaining that liberty is force. Whenever we give up that force, we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.

Censorship is already being "legally" imposed through accretion by compromisers, appeasers, and pragmatists within government at all levels. Note the demands by "progressive" organisations and self-appointed "civil rights" groups to ban so-called "hate" speech (they mean thought and debate), or "extreme" language (they mean principled dissent), or "paramilitary" books (they mean the knowledge of how to resist). When our government imposes censorship, it will be because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists. Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun. As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in advocacy of your own self-defence, according to your own free will, has already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL's "model" anti-militia legislation).

Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from mastering. Before a government is sure you won't resist, it will make sure you can't resist.

The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical government is the notion that they must first let their ability to resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of legislative "slippery-slopes," and sycophantic adherents of a supreme Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless compliance with subjective "laws." Subjective laws must be resisted on metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds, and on constitutional and historical precedence.

No rational man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that, once things are as bad as they can get, "sometime" "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Any man who counsels another to appeal to those mystical equivalents of "divine intervention" for "deliverance" from tyranny is our enemy by all principles conceivable within the scope of rational human intelligence.

The time to organise resistance is not after censorship, but before it. The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit that only the following meet that criteria: freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble--so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment); the right to keep and bear arms -- so that we may have appropriate force in our hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force as necessary (2nd Amendment); the right to be let alone -- so that we may be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd Amendment)); the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers, and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures -- so that our records, ideological materials, and weapons will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).

For the purpose of this discussion, we believe that no other rights are relevant because if every individual right other than those four were violated -- although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance -- their abridgement would not effect our ability to resist. If any of the first four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive power, and their abrogation is upheld or ignored by the courts, unremitting, forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who believes that life, liberty, and property are unalienable and self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.

"The United States should get rid of its militias." -- Josef Stalin, 1933

"The foundation of a free government begins to be undermined when freedom of speech on political subjects is restrained; it is destroyed when freedom of speech is wholly denied." -- William Rawle, LL.D. Philadelphia, 1825

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (1764) -- Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

Lying

 

The Tripwire
by
D. van Oort & J.F.A. Davidson
From The Resister

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive?"-- Alexander Solzhenitzyn, Gulag Archipelago

What would be the tripwire resulting in open rebellion? Examining the Bill of Rights, and considering EXISTING laws only, and not failed attempts, you will find that every clause has been violated to one degree or another.

Documenting those violations would fill volumes, and it is important to remember that only government can violate the exercise of unalienable individual rights and claim immunity from retribution. We omit martial law or public suspension of the Constitution as a tripwire. The overnight installation of dictatorship obviously would qualify as "the tripwire," but is not likely to occur. What has occurred, what is occurring, is the implementation of every aspect of such dictatorship without an overt declaration. The Constitution is being killed by attrition. The Communist Manifesto is being installed by accretion. Any suggestion that martial law is the tripwire leads us to the question: what aspect of martial law justifies the first shot?

For much the same reason, we will leave out mass executions of the Waco variety. For one thing, they are composite abuses of numerous individual rights. Yet, among those abuses, the real tripwire may exist. For another, those events are shrouded in a fog of obfuscation and outright lies. Any rebellion must be based on extremely hard and known facts. Similarly, no rebellion will succeed if its fundamental reasons for occurring are not explicitly identified. Those reasons cannot be explicitly identified if, in place of their identification, we simply point to a composite such as Waco and say, "See, that's why; figure it out." Any suggestion that more Wacos, in and of themselves, would be the tripwire, simply leads us back again to the question: what aspect of them justifies rebellion?

For the same reasons, we leave out a detailed account of Ayn Rand's identification of the four essential characteristics of tyranny. She identified them quite correctly, but together they are just another composite from which we must choose precipitating causes. These characteristics are: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalisation of private property, and "above all," censorship.

With regard to the first characteristic of tyranny, what is the real difference between the Fabian socialist Republican Party and the overtly [Bolshevik] socialist Democratic Party? Nothing but time. Regarding the second we have the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and the ATF's enforcement branch. In action they simply avoid the embarrassment of a trial. Regarding the third, we have asset forfeiture "laws," the IRS, the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the Federal Reserve, the Justice Department's Antitrust Division, and a myriad of other executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions whose sole function is to regulate business and the economy. Regulating business for the common good (fascism) is no different in principle than outright nationalisation (communism).

However, the fourth characteristic of tyranny, censorship, is the obvious primary tripwire. When ideology and the reporting of facts and how-to instructions are forbidden, there is nothing remaining but to fight. Freedom of speech and persuasion -- the freedom to attempt to rationally convince willing listeners -- is so fundamental an individual right that without it no other rights, not even the existence of rights, can be enforced, claimed, debated, or even queried.

Does this censorship include the regulation of the "public" airwaves by the FCC, as in the censorship which prohibits tobacco companies from advertising -- in their own defense -- on the same medium which is commanded by government decree to carry "public service" propaganda against them? Does it include federal compulsion of broadcasters to air politically-correct twaddle for "The Children"? Does it include the Orwellian "Communications Decency Act"? Does it include any irrationalist "sexual harassment" or tribalist "hate speech" laws which prohibit certain spoken words among co-workers? The answer: unequivocally yes.

Although the above do not pertain to ideological or political speech, yet they are censorship and are designed to intimidate people into the acceptance of de facto censorship. We say that any abrogation of free speech, and any form of censorship, which cannot be rectified by the soap box, the ballot box, or the jury box, must be rectified by the cartridge box -- or lost forever.

Americans have been stumbling over tripwires justifying overt resistance for well over 130 years. On one hand, we submit that gun confiscation is a secondary tripwire only. It is second to censorship because if speech is illegal we cannot even discuss the repeal of gun control, or any other population controls. If only guns are illegal, we may still convince people to repeal those laws. On the other hand, gun confiscation may be a sufficient tripwire because the primary one, censorship, can be fully implemented only after the citizenry has been disarmed.

Resistance, in the context of this article, means those legitimate acts by individuals which compel government to restrict its activities and authority to those powers delegated to the Congress by the people in the Constitution.

The distinction to be drawn here is that the objective of patriotic resistance is to restore original Constitutional government, not change the form of government. To this end we believe: The enforcement of any laws -- local, state, or federal -- that through the action or inaction of the courts makes nugatory the individual means of resisting tyranny, justifies resistance.

The operative terms of the above statement are the parameters that must be defined and understood if resistance to tyranny and despotism is to be honourable, and for the cause of individual liberty, rather than anarchy resulting from a new gang of tyrants. Rebellion can never be justified so long as objective means of redress are available, which are themselves not subverted or rendered impotent by further or parallel subjective legislation.

The goal of patriots throughout the country must be the restoration of objective constitutional law and order. The failure to enforce a subjective law (i.e. the Communications Decency Act) does not justify that law existing, but it also does not justify resistance. This is because non-enforcement leaves avenues of redress, including the forbidden activity itself, still available. Should a lower court uphold or ignore a case that challenges subjective law, peaceable means of redress are still open by higher or lateral courts in another jurisdiction.

However, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold subjective laws, or refuse to hear the cases challenging them, then the legislative, executive, and judicial branches have all failed to guarantee individual liberty, from the widest principles to the smallest details. A single refusal by the highest court in the land to overturn a whim-based subjective law, or to refuse to hear the case, is sufficient to justify resistance to that law because there is simply nowhere left to turn for further attempts at redress. At such time nobody is morally bound by that law. Tyranny gets one chance per branch.
America is either a constitutional republic or it is not. If we can restore our republic it will ultimately occur through reason, and reason will then lead our representatives to make unconstitutional those laws which, by any objective standard of justice, should have never been considered in the first place. However, we cannot assert our claim to restore our liberty if we but accede to a single socialist construct. Freedom and serfdom cannot coexist. We cannot have it both ways.

Life, and the means to preserve it, cannot coexist with disarmament. Liberty, and its rational exercise, cannot coexist with subjective constraints. Property, and its acquisition, use, and disposal cannot coexist with expropriation. The federal government's first task is to obey the Constitution. It has refused. Our first task as free men is to force the government to obey it again. The Constitution of the United States of America is a constraint on the federal government, not on the individual.
Likewise, the constitutions of the various states are constraints on the state governments, not on the individual. The Constitution contains many provisions allowing the violation of our natural rights as free men by immoral and unethical men in government. The true heroes of the ratification debates were the Anti-federalists, who secured Federalist guarantees that the Bill of Rights would amend the Constitution.

To their undying credit, the Federalists lived up to their promise. Nevertheless, only after constitutional limitations on government have been restored in their original form can we consider amending the Constitution to redress its very few remaining defects (for example, the absence of a separation of state and the economy clause).

Laws that make nugatory the means of resisting tyranny and despotism determine the tripwire. The creeping legislative erosion of the 2nd Amendment is not the only tripwire that justifies resistance. We submit that any gun control is a secondary tripwire. Not only because it can be effortlessly evaded, but also because it strengthens our cause. It is second only to censorship. If speech is illegal we can discuss neither repeal of gun control, or the repeal of any other unconstitutional "law."

Censorship is not a tripwire, it is THE tripwire. Thus, by default, censorship morally justifies rebellion.

Under censorship, no other rights, including the right to be free from censorship, can be advocated, discussed, or queried. It is incorrect to say that after censorship comes utter subjugation. Censorship is utter subjugation. There is no greater usurpation of liberty while remaining alive. After censorship come the death camps, and they are not a prerequisite of censorship, they are merely a symptom of it. Censorship qua censorship is sufficient in itself to justify open rebellion against any government that legislates, enforces, or upholds it.

However, that is not the half of it. Censorship is alone in being the only violation of individual rights that does not require actual enforcement or challenges in court, before rebellion is justified. When the government forbids you to speak or write, or use your own or a supporter's property to address willing listeners or readers, that government has openly and forcibly declared that the art of peaceful persuasion is dead and will not be tolerated. Upon that very instant, all peaceful avenues of redress have been closed and the only possible method of regaining that liberty is force. Whenever we give up that force, we are not only ruined, we deserve to be ruined.

Censorship is already being "legally" imposed through accretion by compromisers, appeasers, and pragmatists within government at all levels. Note the demands by "progressive" organisations and self-appointed "civil rights" groups to ban so-called "hate" speech (they mean thought and debate), or "extreme" language (they mean principled dissent), or "paramilitary" books (they mean the knowledge of how to resist). When our government imposes censorship, it will be because our ability to use force to resist censorship no longer exists. Buying copies of The Resister is not yet prohibited; buying machine guns already is. Unwarranted search for unlicensed books has not yet occurred; unwarranted search for unlicensed weapons has already begun. As your unalienable right of peaceable discussion and dissent is being daily abridged, your right to peaceably assemble and associate in advocacy of your own self-defence, according to your own free will, has already been outlawed (courtesy of ADL's "model" anti-militia legislation).

Unconstitutional federal agencies now arm themselves with weapons that you may not own, and train in tactics that you are prohibited from mastering. Before a government is sure you won't resist, it will make sure you can't resist.

The most irrational, contradictory, short-range, whimsical notion possible to men who claim the unalienable right to resist tyrannical government is the notion that they must first let their ability to resist be stripped from them before they have the right to use it. This is the argument of so-called conservatives who pish-tosh the notion of legislative "slippery-slopes," and sycophantic adherents of a supreme Court that has no constitutionally delegated authority to interpret the Constitution in the first place. We reject the notion of mindless compliance with subjective "laws." Subjective laws must be resisted on metaphysical and epistemological principles, moral and ethical grounds, and on constitutional and historical precedence.

No rational man desires ends without means. No rational man can be faced with his own imminent subjugation and truly believe that, once things are as bad as they can get, "sometime" "someone" will do "something" "somehow" to counteract that trend. Any man who counsels another to appeal to those mystical equivalents of "divine intervention" for "deliverance" from tyranny is our enemy by all principles conceivable within the scope of rational human intelligence.

The time to organise resistance is not after censorship, but before it. The time to prepare resistance is when our ability to resist is being threatened. The time to begin resistance is when that threat has been upheld or ignored by the courts. The unalienable rights that safeguard our ability to resist are limited to those which, if not violated, allow us to plan and use all materials necessary for resistance. We submit that only the following meet that criteria: freedom of speech and of the press, and the right to peaceably assemble--so that we may advocate ideas, report and discuss news, and instruct others how to carry out resistance activities (1st Amendment); the right to keep and bear arms -- so that we may have appropriate force in our hands should we need it, and be trained to use such force as necessary (2nd Amendment); the right to be let alone -- so that we may be free of government intrusion in our lives, liberty, and property (3rd Amendment)); the right to be secure in our persons, dwellings, papers, and property from unwarranted, unaffirmed searches and seizures -- so that our records, ideological materials, and weapons will remain in our hands (4th Amendment).

For the purpose of this discussion, we believe that no other rights are relevant because if every individual right other than those four were violated -- although it would be an unspeakably evil act on the part of the government, justifying immediate and unforgiving resistance -- their abridgement would not effect our ability to resist. If any of the first four amendments are infringed by legislation, enforced by executive power, and their abrogation is upheld or ignored by the courts, unremitting, forcible resistance, and aid and comfort to its citizen-soldiers, is a moral imperative for every single person who believes that life, liberty, and property are unalienable and self-existing, and not grants of government privilege.

"The United States should get rid of its militias." -- Josef Stalin, 1933

"The foundation of a free government begins to be undermined when freedom of speech on political subjects is restrained; it is destroyed when freedom of speech is wholly denied." -- William Rawle, LL.D. Philadelphia, 1825

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (1764) -- Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

 

Opinions

The basic point of the First Amendment was so that the citizens, who're the sovereign authority of our nation, can read the facts in a free press and make correct decisions in the realm of politics.   But our present day Mainstream Media are now deliberately lying and are refusing to publish the facts about the current administration in Washington.  Back in the old days when someone lied to a king it was treated as an act of Treason.  The deliberate deception of the citizens by the present Mainstream Media has the same practical effect.

Always tell the truth, especially if it reflects badly on you.  When you tell the truth all the time you don't have to keep track of your own lies.  The way to respond to criticism is to tell the truth.  And if the truth's against you, then maybe you're the bad guy.  Before one can lie to others, one has to lie to one's self.  Anyone who feels that they're automatically right is automatically wrong.  Those who advocate Censorship or respond negatively to their critics are wrong and they know it.  Censorship is the negation of the human mind.  As rational thought is necessary to living a human life the censor is an Enemy of Mankind.  If you don't like someone's speech, don't listen to it.  It's easy to refute someone when they insist on being wrong.  All one has to do is tell the truth, but someone can't refute anyone when they insist on being right.  That's why advocates of tyranny always advocate Censorship.

A clear sign that something is wrong is that criticism of of a particular person or doctrine is forbidden.  Putting a happy face on vileness doesn't make a doctrine less vile.  If you want to know who's vile ask who you're not allowed to criticize.  If history has taught us anything it is that those who imagine themselves to be infallible will fail.  And those who imagine themselves incapable of evil will do evil. 

Members of BLM believe they're victims and practice Racial Collectivism.  Gee, Gosh, Wow, where have we've seen this before?  If BLM wants to practice Racial Collectivism, let's threat them as racial collectivists.  In the Nuremberg fashion, from the neck until dead.  Antisemitism in politics is the practical equivalent of a dead canary in a coal mine, I can't say this often enough.  Antisemitism is a subset of Racial Collectivism.  We (Humanity) have to condemn all forms of Racial Collectivism.  We have to identify Black Lives Matter as the Racial Collectivist group that it actually is.  We have to see that Antisemitism is a symptom of a deeper philosophical problem.  So when someone attacks Jews they're attacking all of us.  Antisemitism is a clear sign that all of Humanity is being attacked.  Rejection of Racial Collectivism shouldn't be a radical idea. 

Opinion

 

A bit old but still relevant after all these years.

 

History Lesson

 Herr Doktor Goebbels had sense to know that there was a limit to lying.

Opinions

Democrats want to be tyrants. 

Fine.

We know how to deal with tyrants.  In the Nuremberg style, from the neck until dead.  (A firing squad works okay, too.)

Has the thought ever occurred to anyone that Jesus Christ died for God's sins? 

Expecting the Mainstream Media to lie is like expecting water to be wet.

Under the Primacy of the State the function of law is to control the productive population for the benefit of the ruling parasites.  The rulers and their immediate servants aren't subject to those laws themselves.  The actual interest of the actual citizens is irrelevant.  What matters is the whims of the rulers and those who willfully serve them.  Under the Rule of Law all real laws must be applied to all citizens equally such as the laws prohibiting homicide and theft.  As our Socialist rulers and their willing servants regard themselves as exempt from compliance with the laws on what grounds can they claim to be protected under them?

Once force is openly used against those who speak out against The Left then the gloves will come off and force WILL be openly used against the Left.  Once The Left openly repudiates the rules for living in a civil society then their victims will no longer see themselves as subject to those same rules.  Or to put it another way to The Left, break the rules of civil society and you will leave us no choice but to break you.

Update 1450 HRS: The bank accounts of Canadian protestors are being shut down.  Ayn Rand once said that a threat to a person's livelihood is a death threat.

Definition

I once defined Journalism.

Pravdaism: When a media outlet deliberately lies on the behalf of a political faction instead of reporting the facts.

https://www.urbin.net/LB/dd.html

Personal History

In 2004 there was an attempt to influence the presidential election by the release of the Killian Memos.  The default font of word processors was Times New Roman, the default font of typewriters was Courier New.  In response I scanned my travel orders (which were generated ELEVEN years after the purported date of the Killian Memos) into a graphic file and placed it on a server.  The owner of the server entered my living space and asked me to remove the file as it was slowing down the server.  There were 17000 hits on the site and 3000 complete downloads of the file.  The file is now on my Flickr page.  (https://www.flickr.com/photos/72813079@N00/1413333224/)  And the file can be seen here.

Dr. Thomas Sowell suggested that an award be named for Herr Doktor Goebbels.  The first recipient of the Goebbels Award was to be Dan Rather for releasing the Killian Memos.  Our Mainstream Media has shown itself to be dishonest. The Rittenhouse Trial has clearly shown this.  We have no choice but to go around.
            

Opinions

The Mainstream Media makes Herr Doktor Goebbels look honest in comparison.  Message to The Media: when you're caught lying, you gain the reputation of being a liar.  It becomes increasingly apparent that the word "journalist" is now synonymous with the word liar.

Opinion

There's a clear difference between Journalism and Propaganda.  Some people in the Mainstream Media don;t care.

Opinion

The reputation of the Mainstream Media for dishonesty is apparently catching up with them. 

Update: Actor Alec Baldwin wasn't following Jeff Cooper's Rules Of Firearm Safety.

Thoughts Of The Day

Herr Doktor Goebbels make CNN look credible in comparison.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the high levels of the governments of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Australia, are now having discussion about acquiring nuclear weapons.

"Revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon".

-- Friedrich Engels, On Authority, 1872.

An Unpunished Crime

The ATF needs to be treated as the gang of mass murderers it actually is.

We identify The Holocaust as the evil act it actually was.  But we're looking at The Holocaust objectively.  From the subjective viewpoint the perpetrators of The Holocaust believed they were the good people doing good things and that their victims were evil.  We, the advocates of Liberty take the objective position and identify The Waco Massacre as the act of state terror that it actually was.  But the common narrative has taken the subjective point of view and identifies the perpetrators of massacre as the good guys.

 What has happened is a clearly unpunished crime.

 Here's three thousand words why I will never vote for The Democratic Party.

 

There's a right way to with deal someone like Koresh and it wasn't followed.  An Objectivist has to oppose David Koresh and his followers, but was it necessary to kill them?  No.

April 19, 1993 the event occurred that was commonly known as the Waco Massacre.

What happened?

The local office of the BATF received a report of automatic weapons fire at the residence of Branch Davidians outside of Waco, Texas.  No inquiry was made with the local law enforcement agencies.  Nor did they as allowed under the current regulations send agents out to inspect the federally licensed firearms dealer residing on the site.  And they could've arrested Koresh as he made his morning run but didn't do so.   With his past history of cooperation with local law enforcement they could've simply asked him to come down to the local sheriff’s station.  Instead they attempted to stage a military style assault, code named Operation Showtime, in order to impart a positive impression of the agency upon the current administration in Washington.  Some Federal bureaucrats apparently wanted to feel important.  After the task force was driven off the Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI descended upon the Branch Davidians and laid siege to the residence.

On April 19th the HRT used armored vehicles to destroy the exits from the building and to allow the wind to blow through it and then injected CS gas, known to be inflammable and toxic to children and elderly persons, into the wooden structure.  The HRT fired CS rounds, which are incendiary devices into, the building.  A tactic to commit mass murder used by the SS-Einsatzgruppen in Poland and Russia was to confine civilians, especially women and children, in wooden buildings and set the structures on fire.  To this day the perpetrators remain at large or have been allowed to die in peace.

 

The U.S. Army rifle platoon I trained with in 1982 could have secured the structure without killing any of the children or the elderly adults.  Yes it was possible that some of us actual soldiers could have been wounded or killed in the action.  But that's part of the hazards of the job. 

The Waco Massacre was a demonstration on the part of Big Bubba of the existence of the means to carry out Marxist style state terror and the existence of the will to use it.

 

There are some who believe that because I don't believe in God or Jesus Christ I shouldn't object to the Waco Massacre.  But from an objective perspective an act of state terror, like the Waco Massacre, remains an act of state terror.

.
I reposted on THE NEW RESISTER an article about the Waco Massacre that was originally published on the Libernet Mailing List in 1993.

My Editorial Introduction.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

References.

We have to understand that a firearm is simply a tool.  A firearm is simply a means to a Human end.  The Human end is freedom, this is the opposition to tyranny.  Tyrants want and need to disarm their victims.  Tyrants need victims.  Victims don’t need tyrants.

 

Koresh, if he was alive, would clearly be an enemy of an Objectivist.  But someone has to speak for him.  The massacre of the Branch Davidians was a deliberate act of state terror which was carried straight out of the collectivist ruler handbook. The purpose was to demonstrate to all the consequences of disobeying the collectivists who then occupied the White House.  Comrade McVeigh and the current occupant of the White House, Comrade Biden, are firmly seated on the Collectivist side of the aisle.  If we have anything to thank subsequent Republican presidents for it's for doing nothing.  Our so-called president, Joe Biden, wants to appoint a perpetrator of Waco Massacre to head the BATF.

 

And if you think that attitude and ideology is uniquely Clintonistic I will you disabuse you of that notion:

"Conformity will be the only virtue and any man who refuses to conform will have to pay the penalty."

-- President Woodrow Wilson

Since then the name “Democrat” has become in my mind synonymous with the concept of “murderer.” If there's one complaint I have about President Bush or President Trump it is that they've done nothing to bring the perpetrators of this atrocity to justice.

Nothing. At. All.

We are still waiting for justice.

Here's another six thousand words why I will never vote for The Democratic Party.

 

 

 

UPDATE 0600 HRS CDT:

I wouldn’t be surprised if our Mainstream Media (who make Paul Joseph Goebbels look honest) blame the Afghanistan mess on Republicans.

 

Thoughts Of The Day

Nobody in their right mind would've voted for Joe Biden for the office of President of the United States. Of course if we'd an honest press instead of mob of Paul Joseph Goebbels impersonators we'd safe from the onset of the Social Justice Warrior's reign of terror.  But if we're subject to such a reign please keep in mind that anyone who supports them are mortal enemies and must be identified and dealt with as such. 

The Left passionately hates the Police and the Armed Forces, both of whom have traditionally stood in the path of Holy Marxist Revolution and thus the establishment of the Holy Communist Society where all activities and relationships are dictated by the self-appointed revolutionary saviors and enforced by the compulsory power of the state.  The obvious corollary is The Left appears to have a passionate love for the destroyers of civil society such as violent criminals and organized terrorists.

Reds are inherently parasitic and thus can’t take "no" for an answer to their demands for obedience and the material goods they need to exist.  If they did so they would wither away and die.  A dictator, on the other hand, doesn’t have to take "no" for answer.  Thus Reds are by necessity inclined to favor dictatorships over citizen ruled republics.  When they see a dictator in the dock they see their own hopes and desires go with him. 

What is Communism?

The advocates of Communism are absolutely free to emigrate to any Communist state.  But they don’t do so, because in doing so they become drones.  According to the advocates of the doctrine of Communism they’re not real Communist states.  

What is real Communism?

“Real Communism” is where the advocates of Communism are in charge.

Question

How many illiterates were executed by Fidel Castro?  The Mainstream Media is lying as usual. 

 

Thoughts Of The Day

The alleged Warsaw Pact was like many things the Soviets did was a work of fiction.  The national armies of the alleged Warsaw Pact were actually components of the Soviet Army that were run though the Soviet general staff.  All of their equipment were copies of Soviet equipment or were compatible.

When the incentives for production are eliminated there will be no production.

The first two jobs I had in the private sector were janitorial gigs.  From personal experience I have to state that a mess left uncleaned becomes greater.  I once held a security position in the HealthEast Care System.  Part of my job was to find and warn of problems.  The site supervisor for security at the former Midway Hospital did something wrong.  I tried to give a warning about him.  I was told by a management apparatchik that trying to be right is unhealthy.  To be unhealthy is have something wrong with one physically, or the context of the interview, to have a psychological disorder.  In effect, attempting to be correct on an issue, such as the conflict I had with the brain dead thug of a site supervisor over a payroll issue is somehow wrong.  I ended up leaving the HealthEast Care System  The HealthEast Care System was later sued as a result of a wrongful firing resulting from the site supervisor actions.

The mess has become greater.

The Democratic Party doesn’t want national unity, they want our complete submission.

When the conscience is eliminated any order is valid. 

I strongly suspect that if Joe Biden were to strip naked and walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, the mainstream media drones would proceed to describe the well tailored suit that Biden is clearly not wearing.

Leftism In Action

There's a reason I no longer buy newspapers and switch on the network news programs.  Their reporting on political and ethical issues simply can't be trusted.  There are days that I wish that this branch of our own national fifth column could be held accountable for their ongoing support of slavers and murderers.   But would require the creation of the government bureau whose function is to determine what the truth is and to punish those publish contradictions of it.  And that's a power I don't want to fall into the hands of socialist trash like The Left.